I saw an operation in China removing an ovarian cyst. No anesthetic. Complete entry using a surgical scalpel. The patient was awake and alert on the operating table as the scalpel cut into her skin. Even as the Doctor reached in and located the cyst on her overie. Again zero anaesthetic. The whole operation was done using acupuncture.

But of course it's all nonsense.

Dammit. Anesthesia is genuinely dangerous. If your story was legitimate, this technique would be in universal use.

I saw an operation in China removing an ovarian cyst. No anesthetic. Complete entry using a surgical scalpel. The patient was awake and alert on the operating table as the scalpel cut into her skin. Even as the Doctor reached in and located the cyst on her overie. Again zero anaesthetic. The whole operation was done using acupuncture.

But of course it's all nonsense.

I saw an operation where they cut a woman into three parts without anesthesia, then put her back together.

Dammit. Anesthesia is genuinely dangerous. If your story was legitimate, this technique would be in universal use.

It's not that the story is false that keeps doctors and patients from going anesthesia free, it's attitudes towards the idea. See kenomacs comments. His comments reflect a mainstream position that is very difficult to change.
Remember, at one time washing hands to prevent the spread of disease and infection was widely scoffed at too. It took time but doctors did start coming around.
My guess is that the more an idea strikes fear in people the longer it takes to change minds.

__________________
If toast always lands butter side down, and cats always land on their feet, what would happen if you strapped toast to a cat's back and dropped it? - Steven Wright

It's not that the story is false that keeps doctors and patients from going anesthesia free, it's attitudes towards the idea. See kenomacs comments. His comments reflect a mainstream position that is very difficult to change.
Remember, at one time washing hands to prevent the spread of disease and infection was widely scoffed at too. It took time but doctors did start coming around.
My guess is that the more an idea strikes fear in people the longer it takes to change minds.

Im really surprised at you Ken. Our own profession is one of self seeking, personal glory and multi billion dollar profits. Acupuncture takes money out of their pockets and of course will not be reviewed favourably...... And no, I do not practice acupuncture.

This is the editor of Lancet magasine. Read it in the light of your criticisms. I have little faith in the FDC or any medical authority, any drug testing or any new advancement.

You want to be cynical? Here is cynical.

There is no profit in cure.

Go buy shares in drug companies and armament manufactures and you will be assured of a steady return which will become spectacular if they release a new drug...

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed
to say who made this remark because we were asked
to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked
not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked
for government agencies pleaded that their comments
especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK
election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling
state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech
are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why
the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution?
Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome
Trust in London last week—touched on one of the
most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that
something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of
our greatest human creations.
*
The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny eff ects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical
Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put
their reputational weight behind an investigation into
these questionable research practices. The apparent
endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their
quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often
sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they
retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve
their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst
behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels
an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few
journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature
with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important
confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants.
Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and
talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as
high-impact publication. National assessment procedures,
such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise
bad practices. And individual scientists, including their
most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that
occasionally veers close to misconduct.
*
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the
problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.
Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive
and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science
help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research red
tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could
remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability
statements in grant applications and research papers.
Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist
on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and
post publication peer review. Or improve research training
and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations
from our Series on increasing research value, published
last year. One of the most convincing proposals came
from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg
is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following
several high-profile errors, the particle physics community
now invests great effort into intensive checking and re
checking of data prior to publication. By filtering results
through independent working groups, physicists are
encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The
goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists
are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set
the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle
physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 ×10
–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the
probability that the data would have been as extreme
as they are). The conclusion of the symposium was that
something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree
that it was within our power to do that something. But
as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no
firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to
think somebody else should act first. And every positive
action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a
counterargument (science will become less creative). The
good news is that science is beginning to take some of its
worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody
is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

__________________- Never test how deep the water is with both feet -
10% of conflicts are due to different opinions. 90% by the tone of voice.
Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.

I have no intention of arguing the effectiveness of any proceedure. Each must make their own determination of what procedures are appropriate for them selves. But I have no problem responding to a question "why isn't acupuncture used instead of anesthesia?". Kenomac makes statements and challenges that clearly illustrate the attitudes of the mainstream. They are written here for anyone to read and so, makes a convenient illustration of a point. Most people will agree with him.
That does not mean that future investigation into acupuncture will, or wont, prove it is as effective as anesthesia.
But the placebo effect has, in its self, been proven to be effective in some situations. If acupuncture is "nothing more than placebo" but patients are comfortable, is "placebo" a valid argument?

__________________
If toast always lands butter side down, and cats always land on their feet, what would happen if you strapped toast to a cat's back and dropped it? - Steven Wright

Im really surprised at you Ken. Our own profession is one of self seeking, personal glory and multi billion dollar profits. Acupuncture takes money out of their pockets and of course will not be reviewed favourably...... And no, I do not practice acupuncture.]

Maybe your profession... but I'd hardly consider or describe my job working as Nurse Ratched in the nut house for a minimum nursing wage, as "one of self seeking glory and multi billion dollar profits."

My clinic utilises infrasound, ultrasound and various other devices. These are considered 'alternative' treatments by a lot of medics. We also use medicur which does low emission magnetic at 6hz... fixes a frozen shoulder in no time flat. Designed by NASA to combat muscle weakness in space flights.

Dammit. Anesthesia is genuinely dangerous. If your story was legitimate, this technique would be in universal use.

I saw what I saw. It was not slight of hand or magic. It was a Chinese version of nerve blocking. Nerve blocking is used in Western medicine. I can't speak to why it's not practised more in the West and is in decline in the East. I can suggest that it may have something to do with money.

Maybe your profession... but I'd hardly consider or describe my job working as Nurse Ratched in the nut house for a minimum nursing wage, as "one of self seeking glory and multi billion dollar profits."

I'll continue to call things as I see things.

No no no Ken. YOu ally yourself with the medical profession every time you post. "Im a registered nurse and have a background in nutrition..."

So... OUR profession is led by the 'experts' who submit 50% or more, false papers to justify their 'findings' based on a litany of reasons that have little to do with helping the patients.......... from this base, drugs are made, medical procedures are devised and reasons given for health care management.
I can only prescribe from information given by these stellar people in the pharmaceutical industry... YOu can only work to procedures laid down by them, and 50% is pants.

If you wish to ignore the evidence placed before you, then the cognitive dissonance is working well. YOu cannot call things as you see it because plainly you do NOT see it.

Empirical evidence is favour of acupuncture is that animals are treated with it and somehow it works. The Chinese race use it. A Board certified M.D. and acupuncturist i worked with in the emergency room of a hospital in the UK used it on incoming trauma victims VERY successfully. How do I know? I was there. I saw the evidence. Im still not a practitioner of acupuncture, but in the hands of a skilled person for certain conditions is VERY effective. Go look at the history of banned drugs... all were not tested properly OR the evidence was covered up during the supposed trialing... Thalidomide for example... Totally criminal.

In the end you are the voice of modern medicine. Im not going to fight it. Even your description of the residents of the facility you work at is the "given up" attitude of people that you think are incurable because modern drugs cannot cure so are used to sedate instead. Well here is where I am at with all that.... modern drugs CANNOT cure so perhaps is time to let another type of therapy have a go... But no, its all pants according to the mainstream therapeutics of drugs and if we cannot cure then nothing can... and that is precisely the arrogance of modern medicine in action.

NOne of this is personal to me any more. I fought my fight with the thinking for 10 years and stopped fighting in 1992 when I saw the machinery was unstoppable because of the power and money involved. You are not the individual you think you are, you are the product of their thinking and have bought into it as being the only means of cure.... and all else is useless... even in the face of failures that you witness every day in your mental facility.

I have no animosity towards your view or attitude. Im just sad for the lost opportunity that medicine had to be really good. Changing therapeutics from a drug based system for everything will prevent nearly half of cases going on to being something more invasive..... only money will be lost and Doctors who are steeped in the system will not even give it thinking room...

So.. for me this discussion has reached its predictable outcome. I work at the other end of medicine and try to stop people reaching the operating theatre...... some we win some we lose... Id lose a lot more if i relied on drug therapies solely... especially as half the information is false anyway..

Modern medicine has won already. And we are worse off for it.

__________________- Never test how deep the water is with both feet -
10% of conflicts are due to different opinions. 90% by the tone of voice.
Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.

No no no Ken. YOu ally yourself with the medical profession every time you post. "Im a registered nurse and have a background in nutrition..."

So... OUR profession is led by the 'experts' who submit 50% or more, false papers to justify their 'findings' based on a litany of reasons that have little to do with helping the patients.......... from this base, drugs are made, medical procedures are devised and reasons given for health care management.
I can only prescribe from information given by these stellar people in the pharmaceutical industry... YOu can only work to procedures laid down by them, and 50% is pants.

If you wish to ignore the evidence placed before you, then the cognitive dissonance is working well. YOu cannot call things as you see it because plainly you do NOT see it.

Empirical evidence is favour of acupuncture is that animals are treated with it and somehow it works. The Chinese race use it. A Board certified M.D. and acupuncturist i worked with in the emergency room of a hospital in the UK used it on incoming trauma victims VERY successfully. How do I know? I was there. I saw the evidence. Im still not a practitioner of acupuncture, but in the hands of a skilled person for certain conditions is VERY effective. Go look at the history of banned drugs... all were not tested properly OR the evidence was covered up during the supposed trialing... Thalidomide for example... Totally criminal.

In the end you are the voice of modern medicine. Im not going to fight it. Even your description of the residents of the facility you work at is the "given up" attitude of people that you think are incurable because modern drugs cannot cure so are used to sedate instead. Well here is where I am at with all that.... modern drugs CANNOT cure so perhaps is time to let another type of therapy have a go... But no, its all pants according to the mainstream therapeutics of drugs and if we cannot cure then nothing can... and that is precisely the arrogance of modern medicine in action.

NOne of this is personal to me any more. I fought my fight with the thinking for 10 years and stopped fighting in 1992 when I saw the machinery was unstoppable because of the power and money involved. You are not the individual you think you are, you are the product of their thinking and have bought into it as being the only means of cure.... and all else is useless... even in the face of failures that you witness every day in your mental facility.

I have no animosity towards your view or attitude. Im just sad for the lost opportunity that medicine had to be really good. Changing therapeutics from a drug based system for everything will prevent nearly half of cases going on to being something more invasive..... only money will be lost and Doctors who are steeped in the system will not even give it thinking room...

So.. for me this discussion has reached its predictable outcome. I work at the other end of medicine and try to stop people reaching the operating theatre...... some we win some we lose... Id lose a lot more if i relied on drug therapies solely... especially as half the information is false anyway..

Modern medicine has won already. And we are worse off for it.

No you're wrong....

I don't ally myself with anyone in medicine other than the patients under my direct care. Basically, every day or night I head into work my goal is nobody dies who isn't expected to, all the correct meds are given to the correct people as perscribed by an MD provided they aren't experiencing any harmful effects, nobody falls down or gets hurt and the patients are all treated with respect by the staff. Sometimes, limits on behavioral issues need to be instituted for the protection of some patients and and staff.

I work as a patient advocate, not for the MD and not for the medical bureaucracy. Which is the way a registered nurse is licensed in America, don't know or care about how it's done where you live or elsewhere. So... If I see a treatment to be detrimental to a patient, I do something to prevent harm, that's my job. When I see medical quackery.... I call it out when I see it. Like accupuncture.

It's not that the story is false that keeps doctors and patients from going anesthesia free, it's attitudes towards the idea. See kenomacs comments. His comments reflect a mainstream position that is very difficult to change.
Remember, at one time washing hands to prevent the spread of disease and infection was widely scoffed at too. It took time but doctors did start coming around.
My guess is that the more an idea strikes fear in people the longer it takes to change minds.

It's mainstream because it's correct. In fact, you are one of the very people you refer to, ignoring science in favor of what you'd like to be true instead. Might as well try prayer instead of anesthesia, it's just as likely to be effective. That is, not at all. Unless, of course, you pray that the medical team gives you real anesthesia ...

I saw what I saw. It was not slight of hand or magic. It was a Chinese version of nerve blocking. Nerve blocking is used in Western medicine. I can't speak to why it's not practised more in the West and is in decline in the East. I can suggest that it may have something to do with money.

I don't doubt your truthfulness, though I'm skeptical of your correctness. And even if you are correct in this case, it's utterly meaningless except perhaps as an indication that some real science might be worthwhile.

Except, of course, that much real science has already been done on the subject, and it's been proven to be no more effective than any other placebo. I have no problem with the idea the big pharma seeks profit above all. But in this case, like vitamin supplements discussed elsewhere herein, the science is not ambiguous.

You're believing in magic. Your choice, of course. Millions do every day, it makes them feel better about themselves and their lives. It gives hope, where there appeared to be none otherwise.

I favor reality; and choose to follow the evidence no matter where it leads, even when it contradicts something I very much want to be true.

No no no Ken. YOu ally yourself with the medical profession every time you post. "Im a registered nurse and have a background in nutrition..."
Empirical evidence is favour of acupuncture is that animals are treated with it and somehow it works. The Chinese race use it. A Board certified M.D. and acupuncturist i worked with in the emergency room of a hospital in the UK used it on incoming trauma victims VERY successfully. How do I know? I was there. I saw the evidence. <SNIP>

This is not hard at all, Weavis. I can't speak for any here but myself. But I am easily swayed by real evidence (rather than anecdotes). Point me to a bona fide clinical study using a statically meanifully sample size where the sample members were anesthetized for surgery using only acupuncture. I will read it.

I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't go under the knife without real anesthesia, the kind of anesthesia that underwent clinical trials at multiple levels before being used on humans, and then more trials on humans, before being allowed into general use.

Science can be uncertain and unpleasant, but it's better than superstition.